Message-ID: <20120821112433.GB3519@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:54:34 +0530
From:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, michael@...erman.id.au,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, peterz@...radead.org,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] powerpc: Uprobes port to powerpc

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 05:00:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/17, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:21:12PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm, I am not sure. is_swbp_insn(insn), as it is used in the arch agnostic
> > > code, should only return true if insn == UPROBE_SWBP_INSN (just in case,
> > > this logic needs more fixes but this is offtopic).
> >
> > I think it does...
> >
> > > If powerpc has another insn(s) which can trigger powerpc's do_int3()
> > > counterpart, they should be rejected by arch_uprobe_analyze_insn().
> > > I think.
> >
> > The insn that gets passed to arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() is copy_insn()'s
> > version, which is the file copy of the instruction.
> 
> Yes, exactly. And we are going to single-step this saved uprobe->arch.insn,
> even if gdb/whatever replaces the original insn later or already replaced.
> 
> So arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() should reject the "unsafe" instructions which
> we can't step over safely.

Agreed.

> > We should also take
> > care of the in-memory copy, in case gdb had inserted a breakpoint at the
> > same location, right?
> 
> gdb (or even the application itself) and uprobes can obviously confuse
> each other, in many ways, and we can do nothing at least currently.
> Just we should ensure that the kernel can't crash/hang/etc.

Absolutely. The proper fix for this at least from a breakpoint insertion
perspective is to educate gdb (possibly ptrace itself) to fail on a
breakpoint insertion request on an already existing one.

> > Updating is_swbp_insn() per-arch where needed will
> > take care of both the cases, 'cos it gets called before
> > arch_analyze_uprobe_insn() too.
> 
> For example. set_swbp()->is_swbp_insn() == T means that (for example)
> uprobe_register() and uprobe_mmap() raced with each other and there is
> no need for set_swbp().

This is true for Intel like architectures that have *one* swbp
instruction. On Powerpc, gdb for instance, can insert a trap variant at
the address. Therefore, is_swbp_insn() by definition should return true
for all trap variants.

> However, find_active_uprobe()->is_swbp_at_addr()->is_swbp_insn() is
> different, "true" confirms that this insn has triggered do_int3() and
> thus we need send_sig(SIGTRAP) (just in case, this is not strictly
> correct too but offtopic again).
> 
> We definitely need more changes/fixes/improvements in this area. And
> perhaps powerpc requires more changes in the arch-neutral code, I dunno.

For powerpc, just having is_swbp_insn() (already a weak function) handle
the trap variants, should suffice.

> In particular, I think is_swbp_insn() should have a single caller,
> is_swbp_at_addr(), and this caller should always play with current->mm.
> And many, many other changes in the long term.
> 
> So far I think that, if powerpc really needs to change is_swbp_insn(),
> it would be better to make another patch and discuss this change.
> But of course I can't judge.

OK. I will separate out the is_swbp_insn() change into a separate patch.

Ananth

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists